The Role of Peer Relationships in Adjustment to College

Lisa M. Swenson, Alicia Nordstrom, Marnie Hiester

Journal of College Student Development, Volume 49, Number 6, November/December

2008, pp. 551-567 (Article)

Published by Johns Hopkins University Press

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0038

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/253955

Access provided by Arizona State University (12 Sep 2017 16:44 GMT)
The Role of Peer Relationships in
Adjustment to College
Lisa M. Swenson   Alicia Nordstrom   Marnie Hiester

According to developmental research, peer rela­
tion­ships serve a positive function in children’s,
adolescents’, and adults’ lives. We expected that
peer relationships would also benefit emerging
adults as they transition into college. Using
friendship quality and attachment measures, we
examined the link between the closeness of peer
relationships (with high school and college
friends) and adjustment outcomes (academic,
social, emotional, and institutional attachment)
among 271 first-year college students. Results
suggest that a close relationship with a high school
friend is beneficial during the first weeks of
college, but later in the first semester there are
more benefits to having a close relationship with
a new college friend.
When an adolescent transitions into college,
many changes take place. Adolescents enter
the emerging adulthood age period, which by
definition is a period of instability and
exploration during which they must adjust to
an unfamiliar environment that consists of
different academic and social relationships,
identity explorations, and possible changes in
self–concept (Arnett, 2004). If these changes
are negative stressors in a college student’s life,
this may result in poor adjustment to the new
environment, the consequences of which could
be poor performance in the classroom or even
a loss of that student from the educational
institution (e.g., Bean, 1985; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 1980; Tinto, 1975). Although many
factors come together to impact adjustment
to college, the purpose of this study was to
examine one component of emerging adults’
lives, peer relationships, to determine how
these relationships affect adjustment.
In general, peers are central to adolescents’
and emerging adults’ lives. Erikson’s theory of
psychosocial development posits that the major
developmental task of the early 20s is to
establish close intimate relationships (Erikson,
1963). Given the importance of peers during
these years, we expected that friends would
play an important role in the transition into
college. Researchers have documented the
benefits of friendships among children and
adolescents (e.g., Hartup & Stevens, 1997;
New­comb & Bagwell, 1995; Rubin, Bukowski,
& Parker, 1998), particularly in a school
context (see Ladd & Kochenderfer, 1996, for
a review). Research on older adults also has
described the benefits of friends’ provisions of
social support to well–being and health (e.g.,
Adams & Blieszner, 1995; Antonucci &
Akiyama, 1995). The literature on the benefits
or role of friends during emerging adulthood
is not as extensive, but does indicate that peers
often take over as primary attachment figures
(Fraley & Davis, 1997) and play a role in need
fulfillment (Carbery & Buhrmester, 1998). In
a school context, peer relationships can
influence student development (Chickering &

Lisa Swenson is Assistant Professor of Psychology at Pennsylvania State University, Hazleton. Alicia Nordstrom is
Assistant Professor of Psychology and Marnie Hiester is Associate Professor of Psychology, both at Misericordia University.
This research was supported by a Faculty Research Development Grant obtained by the first author from her institution.
The authors would like to thank Drs. Peter Crabb, Christopher Goguen, Justin Nordstrom, Michael Polgar, and
Elizabeth Wright for their comments on versions of this manuscript.

November /December 2008 ◆ vol 49 no 6 551


Reisser, 1993) and can affect students’ satis­
faction with an institution (Astin, 1993). Yet,
as they transition from adolescence to emerging
adulthood and from high school into college,
many students’ friendships end or at least
change due to physical separations or contrast­
ing life goals (Paul & Brier, 2001; Rose, 1984).
Moreover, there may be a lag in making close
friends in their new college environment. In
this study, we expected that friends would play
a role in adjustment to college. If friendships
themselves transition, though, we expected
that there would be differences in how older
high school friendships versus new college
friendships were associated with adjustment.
Relationship Quality and Adjustment
Research examining relationship quality and
adjustment has focused mostly on transitions
into or development through middle school
and high school. Researchers have defined
school adjustment as “the degree to which
children become interested, engaged, comfort­
able, and successful in the school environment”
(Ladd & Kochenderfer, 1996, p. 324). Assess­
ments of relationship quality include the use
of friendship quality measures, which assess
variables such as the extent of intimacy, valida­
tion, or conflict resolution (e.g., Bukowski,
Hoza, & Boivin, 1994; Parker & Asher, 1993;
Sharabany, Gershoni, & Hofman, 1981), and
measures of attachment style between partners
in the relationship. Attachment relationships
are close, emotional bonds between two
people, and style can be defined by measuring
behaviors such as proximity seeking and
comfort (Goldberg, 2000). Research has
shown a connection between relationship
quality and attachment such that being
securely attached to a partner is associated with
higher–quality relationships (Hazan & Shaver,
1987; Markiewicz, Doyle, & Brendgen, 2001).
Individuals who are more securely attached are
more likely to self–disclose to friends
552
Swenson, Nordstrom, & Hiester
(Mikulincer & Nachslon, 1991), report greater
intimacy (Grabill & Kerns, 2000), and expect
more support, trust, and acceptance from
friends (You & Malley–Morrison, 2000).
There is a significant link between the
quality of peer relationships and adjustment
variables during the transition to high school
and throughout the high school years (Demir &
Urberg, 2004). Greater friendship quality was
associated with greater emotional adjust­ment.
Furthermore, attachment styles were associated
with adjustment such that secure attachments
were associated with fewer internalizing
problems and greater self–concept.
With a focus on attachment, researchers
found that attachment to one’s parents, but
not to one’s peers, was beneficial to high school
students’ well–being following a stressful life
event (Greenberg, Siegel, & Leitch, 1983).
Although peer relationships are important
aspects of adolescents’ lives (e.g., see Hartup
& Stevens, 1997; Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995)
and adolescents spend an increasing amount
of time with peers (Gavin & Furman, 1989),
perhaps when they are still living at home
adolescents turn to their parents for help. Once
they transition into college and away from
their family unit, they may start to seek
support from friends to help them through big
life changes, as is suggested by research on
emerging adults (Fraley & Davis, 1997). When
assessing romantic relationships among high
school students, adjustment was related to the
attachment style between partners. As com­
pared to insecurely attached partners, securely
attached partners were better adjusted, as
indicated by lower anxiety and depression and
higher perceived competence (Cooper, Shaver,
& Collins, 1998).
Researchers studying emerging adults have
described a significant link between the quality
of college students’ peer relationships and their
adjustment to college (Fass & Tubman, 2002;
Lapsley & Edgerton, 2002). When focusing
Journal of College Student Development
Peer Relationships and Adjustment
on attachment between peers, poor attachment
was associated with lower ratings of scholastic
competence (Fass & Tubman, 2002). As
compared to insecure attachments, secure
attachment styles were associated with better
social adjustment (Lapsley & Edgerton). When
focusing on social support, although students’
ratings of their closest friendships were not
significantly correlated with adjustment, when
students assessed support received from peers
more generally, the greater the support
received, the better was their emotional
adjustment (e.g., less anxiety, better quality of
life; Abbey, Abramis, & Caplan, 1985). Fur­
ther­more, researchers reported that increased
social support over the first two semesters of
college predicted improved social and emo­
tional/personal adjustment (Friedlander, Reid,
Shupak, & Cribbie, 2007). This leads to the
expectation of positive associations between
peer attachment and academic, social, and
emotional/personal adjustment among emerg­
ing adults, as is found between high school
romantic partners, college peers, and parents
and teenage children. It is also reasonable to
expect that more supportive friendships (i.e.,
better quality) would be associated with better
adjustment.
Another comparison of interest was the
quality of students’ relationships with their
“old” high school best friend and their best
new college friend to determine whether these
relationships were associated with adjustment
in the same way. Bean (1985) described that
if students have greater attachments to
“outsiders” then they are not likely to be as
successfully socialized to the new institution,
thus suggesting the importance of making
friends in the new school environment.
Supporting the idea of moving on to new
friendships, Paul and Brier (2001) used the
term “friendsickness” to describe the concept
of missing old friends and found that there
were negative implications of this emotional
November /December 2008 ◆ vol 49 no 6
state. Although the negative effects of friend­
sickness do not necessarily indicate that
students should end their old friendships, it
could be more evidence for the need to make
new friends in a new environment to help
reduce feelings of loneliness and alienation.
Intimacy with friends is negatively correlated
with loneliness (Wiseman, 1997), and thus we
expected that lower intimacy between peers
would be associated with poorer adjustment,
particularly in a social and emotional/personal
sense.
Conflict and Adjustment
In addition to the expectation of a positive
association between positive relationship
features and adjustment, negative aspects of
relationships may be associated with poorer
adjustment. Although much research has been
conducted to investigate the impact of peer
conflict (e.g., disagreements, arguing, fighting)
on the status or perceptions of relationships
(e.g., see Collins & Laursen, 1992; Laursen,
1996), the literature on the link between
conflict and adjustment is not so extensive,
even though such conflict could be damaging
to adjustment and success in a school environ­
ment. Among adolescents, negative friendship
features such as conflict were associated with
maladjustment, in terms of behavior problems
and poor school grades (Berndt & Keefe, 1992;
Burk & Laursen, 2005). Thus, we would
expect a significant negative association
between conflict and adjustment among
emerging adults.
Purpose of the Present Study
The main goal for this study was to describe
the link between relationship quality and
adjust­ment among first–year college students.
Based on developmental research on children,
adolescents and older adults, positive friendship
qualities and better, more secure attachment
relationships are associated with better adjust­
553

ment. We expected to identify a significant
positive association between relationship
quality and adjustment among emerging
adults. A second goal was to determine how
old high school friends and new college friends
provided support. We expected that high
school friendships could be beneficial when a
student first starts college, but in order to
adjust and attach to the new environment, a
student must develop new intimate friendships
with college peers. A third goal of our study
was to compare methods of assessing relation­
ship quality among emerging adults. By using
measures of attachment, we expected to
confirm previous research showing that close
relationships are beneficial to adjustment
during transitional periods. By using friendship
quality measures, we expected to explain how
and why these close relationships are beneficial
by describing specific features that are asso­
ciated with adjustment. We expected to find
a positive association between relationship
quality and adjustment when using both
friendship quality and attachment measures,
and we expected that the use of multiple
measures would provide a more complete story
about this association.
Method
Participants
A sample of 271 emerging adults in their first
year of college (64% females) was selected from
a larger sample of college students recruited
using convenience sampling techniques for a
short–term longitudinal study. Students were
recruited during the first 2 weeks of fall
semester classes (“Time 1” assessment) and
were asked to participate again during the 11th
and 12th weeks of the same fall semester
(“Time 2” assessment). Inclusion criteria for
the present study were freshman (first–year)
status, traditional age for college freshman (age
18 or 19), and participation in both of the two
554
Swenson, Nordstrom, & Hiester
waves of data collection. The average age of
participants was 18.08 years (SD = .27). The
majority of participants were Caucasian/White
(87%). Other racial and ethnic groups were
minimally represented, as matched the demo­
graphics of the institutions and surrounding
communities.
Students who qualified for inclusion were
recruited from two institutions in the north­
eastern United States. Of the 271 total, 132
(66 females, 66 males) were enrolled at a
branch campus of a large state university and
139 (107 females, 32 males) were enrolled at
a private liberal arts university. We recruited
students from two universities in order to
increase our sample size, but not with the
intent of comparing samples. To ensure that
students at the two universities did not differ
significantly on demographic variables, we
conducted analyses to test for similarities. Age
and racial composition of the two universities
were similar and reflected population statistics
from the surrounding communities. Analyses
yielded a difference in sex composition, with
the state university enrolling more males
relative to females and the private university
enrolling more females relative to males, which
also reflected university population character­
istics for these two institutions. Both univer­
sities were residential campuses with the
majority of students living on (73.7%) or near
(3.8%) campus. The remainder of students
(22.5%) commuted from home, an average of
9 miles.
Measures
The measures described below were part of a
larger packet of materials completed by
participants.
Friendship Quality. To indicate the quality
of their best friendships, participants completed
the Intimate Friendship Scale (IFS; Sharabany,
1994) regarding both their very best friend
from high school (Time 1 and 2 assessments)
Journal of College Student Development
Peer Relationships and Adjustment

and their very best new college friend (Time
2). The IFS consists of 32 items which,
according to previous factor analyses (see
Sharabany) organize into eight subscales. Use
of this scale in previous research with college
students showed high inter–item reliability
among items on each subscale (Wiseman,
1997): frankness and spontaneity (α = .83;
e.g., I feel free to talk to him/her about almost
everything); sensitivity and knowing (α = .80;
e.g., I know how he/she feels about things
without him/her telling me); attachment
(α = .81; e.g., I feel close to him/her);
exclusiveness (α = .76; e.g., I do things with
him/her which are quite different from what
others do); giving and sharing (α = .76; e.g.,
When something nice happens to me I share
the experience with him/her); imposition
(α = .70; e.g., If I want him/her to do
something for me all I have to do is ask);
common activities (α = .63; e.g., I like to do
things with him/her); and trust and loyalty
(α = .67; e.g., I know that whatever I tell him/
her is kept secret between us). Participants
rated items using a 7–point scale to indicate
the degree to which each statement described
the relationship with their best friend (1 =
“This sentence does not describe your relationship
at all ”; 7 = “This sentence describes your
relationship very well ”). For data analyses, we
created eight subscale scores by averaging
ratings for the four items that composed each
subscale (see Table 1 for mean ratings and
reliability statistics for subscales). We used the

Table 1.
Means, Standard Deviations, and Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Statistics for
Relationship Quality Scales

T1 – High School T2 – High School T2 – College

Best Friend Best Friend Best Friend

α M SD α M SD α M SD

Intimate Friendship Scale

Frankness & Spontaneity .83 6.08 0.96 .89 5.94 1.20 .83 5.53 1.22
Sensitivity & Knowing .80 6.03 0.94 .89 5.89 1.19 .82 5.36 1.23
Attachment .74 5.53 1.16 .79 5.38 1.38 .78 4.75 1.36
Exclusiveness .54 4.61 1.06 .71 4.53 1.37 .61 3.91 1.20
Giving & Sharing .80 5.92 1.00 .85 5.83 1.17 .79 5.54 1.12
Imposition .74 5.56 1.06 .84 5.46 1.31 .76 4.98 1.26
Common Activities .66 5.50 1.05 .83 4.96 1.45 .72 4.89 1.23
Trust & Loyalty .76 6.17 0.94 .84 6.05 1.20 .76 5.78 1.14

Quality of Relationships Inventory

Conflict Subscale .85 1.47 0.36 .88 1.50 .47 .83 1.35 0.35

Inventory of Peer Attachment

Trust .90 4.37 0.58
Communication .86 3.94 0.69
Alienation .69 3.86 0.58

Note. Means represent the average rating of all subscale items.

November /December 2008 ◆ vol 49 no 6 555


eight subscale scores rather than an overall
average or total score so that we could examine
the specific aspects of relationships that are
associated with adjustment.
Peer Attachment. To indicate the quality
of the attachment with their best friends,
participants completed the Inventory of Peer
Attachment, part of the larger Inventory of
Parent and Peer Attachment (Armsden &
Greenberg, 1987). The Inventory of Peer
Attachment is 25 items long, organized into
three subscales, which, according to previous
factor analyses display high inter–item reli­
ability (see Armsden & Greenberg): trust
(α = .91; e.g., My friends accept me as I am.);
communication (α = .87; e.g., My friends
encourage me to talk about my difficulties.);
and alienation (α = .72; e.g., My friends don’t
understand what I am going through these
days.). Items are rated on a scale from 1 (almost
never or never true) to 5 (almost always or always
true) to indicate the extent to which each
statement is true about the relationship with
one’s friends. For data analyses, we computed
three subscale scores to represent the average
ratings of the 10 trust items (α = .90), 8
communication items (α = .86), and 7 aliena­
tion items (α = .69). We used subscale scores
in analyses, rather than a total attachment
score, so that we could examine how specific
aspects of close friendships are associated with
adjustment (see Table 1 for mean ratings for
each subscale).
Attachment Style. To indicate general
attachment style with friends, participants
completed the Relationship Questionnaire
(RQ; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). For
this measure, participants read through four
paragraphs, each describing a different style,
and they selected the paragraph that best
described themselves. The four attachment
styles represented are: secure (characterized by
comfort with both intimate relationships and
autonomy), fearful–avoidant (characterized by
556
Swenson, Nordstrom, & Hiester
a fear of intimacy, which leads to avoidant
behaviors), preoccupied (overinvolvement or
preoccupation with an intimate relationship),
and dismissing–avoidant (dismissing of the
importance of intimate relationships; Bartholo­
mew & Horowitz). Validity of the attachment
styles was established by comparing ratings of
style with ratings of other self–report self–
concept measures. For data analysis, attachment
style was represented as a categorical variable.
Conflict. To indicate the extent to which
conflict was present in their relationships with
best friends, participants completed the
conflict subscale of the Quality of Relationships
Inventory (QRI, Pierce, Sarason, & Sarason,
1991). The QRI conflict subscale consists of
14 items for which participants rate the degree
to which the relationship is a source of conflict
(e.g., “How often do you have to work hard
to avoid conflict with this person?”). Items are
rated on a 4–point scale ranging from “not at
all” to “very much.” In previous research, the
conflict subscale displayed high reliability
among item ratings (α = .91; Pierce et al.). For
data analyses, we computed an average conflict
score by averaging the ratings of all 14 conflict
items (see Table 1 for mean ratings and
reliability statistics).
Adjustment. We assessed four types of
adjustment to college (academic, social, emo­
tional/personal, and institutional attach­ment)
using the Student Adaptation to College
Questionnaire (SACQ; Baker & Siryk, 1984).
The SACQ consists of 67 items with 8 of the
items contributing to both the social adjust­
ment and institutional attachment subscales.
Participants rate each item on a 9–point scale
ranging from “applies very closely to me” to
“doesn’t apply to me at all ” to indicate the
degree to which the statement was true for
them at the time of assessment (Time 2). Baker
and Siryk (1999) summarized the psycho­
metric properties of the SACQ and reported
high reliability for all subscales: academic
Journal of College Student Development
Peer Relationships and Adjustment
adjustment (24 items, α range = .81 to .90;
e.g., “I am satisfied with the level at which I
am performing academically”); social adjust­
ment (20 items, α range = .83 to .91; e.g., “I
am meeting as many people and making as
many friends as I would like at college.”);
emotional/personal adjustment (15 items,
α range = .77 to .86; e.g., “I have been feeling
tense or nervous lately.”); and institutional
attachment (15 items, α range = .85 to .91;
e.g., “I expect to stay at college for a bachelor’s
degree.”). For data analyses, we created four
subscale scores by averaging the ratings for the
items that comprised each subscale.
Procedure
We recruited participants using convenience
sampling techniques. During the first and
second weeks of the fall semester we visited 19
sections of English composition courses at one
university and 13 sections of History courses
at the second university because these courses
were taken by the majority of first–year
students and were general education core
requirements for all students. We explained
the general purpose of the study and distributed
consent forms to review with the students. To
students who consented to participate, we gave
a questionnaire booklet to complete on their
own time outside of the classroom and asked
them to return it within 1 week.
In total, 488 students (257 from the state
university, 231 from the liberal arts university)
agreed to participate and completed the
questionnaire booklets for the Time 1 assess­
ment, including completion of the IFS and
QRI–Conflict in regards to their best high
school friend and the IPPA and RQ regarding
their friendships in general. Ten weeks later,
we visited the same classes to follow up with
the 488 students who completed the question­
naires at Time 1 and asked them to complete
a second booklet of questionnaires. We gave
students 1 week to complete and return the
November /December 2008 ◆ vol 49 no 6
second set of questionnaires. Of the 488, 321
completed and returned the Time 2 booklets
(66% participation rate). Of these participants,
271 (132 from the state university, 139 from
the liberal arts university) met criteria for
inclusion in our sample due to their age and
class status. During Time 2, participants
completed the IFS and QRI–Conflict regarding
their best high school and best college friend,
as well as the SACQ.
Results
Data analyses addressed the following research
hypotheses: (a) The quality of peer relation­ships
would be positively associated with adjustment
to college (academic, social, emotional/
personal, and institutional attach­ment) among
first–year college students; (b) The association
between friendship quality and adjustment
would differ when assessing relationships with
best high school friends versus best new college
friends; (c) Measures of friendship quality and
peer attachment among college friends would
consistently yield positive associations with all
forms of adjustment.
Preliminary Analyses
Because data were collected from students at
two separate institutions, we conducted all
data analyses with institution (pubic, private)
as a covariate. Results were identical to results
from analyses without the institution variable,
thus we report results from the aggregate
sample.
Previous research has suggested that
females report significantly closer peer relation­
ships than do males (e.g., Sharabany et al.,
1981), and one–way analyses of variance
confirm this sex difference with the IFS
subscales. We conducted all analyses with sex
(male, female) as a covariate to test for an effect
for sex in adjustment outcomes. Results were
identical to results from analyses without the
557
 Swenson, Nordstrom, & Hiester

Table 2.
Associations Among Friendship Quality with High School Best Friend
(Time 1 Assessment) and Adjustment to College

Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire

Emotional/
Academic Social Personal Institutional
Adjustment Adjustment Adjustment Attachment

Intimate Friendship Scale (T1)

Frankness & Spontaneity .11 .13 .15* .15*
Sensitivity & Knowing .00 –.00 –.08 –.06
Attachment –.06 –.11 –.08 –.10
Exclusiveness –.10 –.03 –.09 –.05
Giving & Sharing .07 .02 .06 .12
Imposition .10 –.01 .11 –.04
Common Activities –.12 .05 –.02 .02
Trust & Loyalty .08 .03 –.02 –.02
2
R for Overall Regression .12*** .07* .07* .07*
Model

Quality of Relationships Scale

(T1)
Conflict Subscale –.29*** –.18** –.18** –.26***

Note. Numbers in table represent unique contributions of predictors to R2 (semipartial correlations, sr2) in their
respective regression models.
*p < .03. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

sex variable, thus we report results without
discussion of sex.
Due to the high number of subscales of
the IFS, we examined multicollinearity
diagnostics within the regression models that
follow to ensure that the variance accounted
for was not inflated due to a high degree of
overlap among the subscales. The variance
inflation factors (VIF) indicated that multi­
collinearity was not present among our data.
Friendship Quality and Adjustment
We conducted standard multiple regression
analyses to test the hypothesis of a positive
association between friendship quality and
adjustment. We used ratings for the IFS
subscales as predictor variables and ratings for
the SACQ as outcome or dependent variables.
First, we conducted analyses involving ratings
of the relationship with one’s best high school
friend at the beginning of the students’ first
college semester (Time 1). Four linear regres­
sion analyses were computed to assess associ­
ations among the eight IFS subscales with each
of the four SACQ subscales. Because of the
high number of comparisons in the regression
analyses, we adopted a more conservative alpha
value of .03.
As expected, the total contribution of all
IFS subscales were significant predictors of
each of the four types of adjustment (see Table
2 for R2 and associated values). When exam­

558 Journal of College Student Development

Peer Relationships and Adjustment

ining each predictor individually, ratings of
frankness and spontaneity items were positively
associated with both emotional/personal
adjustment and institutional attachment (see
Table 2), meaning that greater frankness and
spontaneity between friends was associated
with better adjustment.
We conducted another set of standard
multiple regression analyses to see whether
one’s best high school friend continued to
benefit adjustment later in a student’s first
semester. In four regression analyses, we
compared IFS subscale ratings of the quality
of the relationship with one’s high school best
friend during Time 2 assessment to adjustment
(SACQ subscales). Similar to analyses with
Time 1 data, as expected the total contribution
of all IFS subscales were significant predictors
of each of the four types of adjustment (see
Table 3 for R2 and associated values). Results
differed, though, when we examined individ­
ual friendship qualities in association with
adjustment. Greater exclusivity with one’s best
high school friend was significantly associated
with poorer academic and social adjustment
and poorer institutional attachment (see Table
3). Higher ratings on the imposition subscale
(indicating a good and close relationship) were
associated with better emotional/personal
adjustment (see Table 3). Finally, higher ratings
for the common activities subscale were
associated with greater institutional attachment
(see Table 3).
Next, we conducted standard multiple

Table 3.
Associations Among Friendship Quality with High School Best Friend
(Time 2 Assessment) and Adjustment to College

Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire

Emotional/
Academic Social personal Institutional
adjustment adjustment adjustment attachment

Intimate Friendship Scale (T2)

Frankness & Spontaneity –.01 .01 –.01 .02
Sensitivity & Knowing .03 .06 –.00 –.01
Attachment .03 –.04 –.10 –.00
Exclusiveness –.17** –.16* –.13 –.19**
Giving & Sharing –.07 –.11 .04 –.08
Imposition .08 .14* .14* .07
Common Activities .02 .12 .06 .19**
Trust & Loyalty .16* .09 .06 .11
R2 for Overall Regression .10** .12** .10* .10**
Model

Quality of Relationships Scale (T2)

Conflict Subscale –.23*** –.18** –.27*** –.23**

Note. Numbers in table represent unique contributions of predictors to R2 (semipartial correlations, sr2) in their
respective regression models.
* p < .03. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

November /December 2008 ◆ vol 49 no 6 559

 Swenson, Nordstrom, & Hiester

Table 4.
Associations Among Friendship Quality with New Best College Friend and
Adjustment to College

Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire

Emotional/
Academic Social Personal Institutional
Adjustment Adjustment Adjustment Attachment

Intimate Friendship Scale

Frankness & Spontaneity .07 .03 .03 .03
Sensitivity & Knowing .02 .09 .06 –.02
Attachment –.11 –.03 –.17* –.08
Exclusiveness –.02 .00 –.01 –.07
Giving & Sharing –.06 –.07 .03 –.05
Imposition .02 –.02 .04 .03
Common Activities .02 .15* .03 .21**
Trust & Loyalty .16* .10 .01 .11
2
R for Overall Regression .10** .17*** .05 .14***
Model

Quality of Relationships Scale

Conflict Subscale –.27*** –.20** –.17* –.26***

Note. Numbers in table represent unique contributions of predictors to R2 (semipartial correlations, sr2) in their
respective regression models.
*p < .03. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

regression analyses to compare ratings of the
relationship with one’s best college friend to
ratings of adjustment. We conducted four
regression analyses with the eight IFS subscales
(college friend, Time 2) and each of the four
SACQ subscales. Supporting the hypothesis
of a positive association between friendship
quality and adjustment, three of the four
regression models revealed that friendship
quality was significantly associated with
adjustment (see Table 4), the exception being
the model predicting emotional/personal
adjustment. Upon examining the individual
contributions of each IFS subscale, ratings of
common activities shared between friends were
positively associated with both social adjust­
ment and institutional attachment (see Table
4), meaning that having more activities and
interests in common was associated with better
adjustment. Moreover, greater trust and loyalty
between friends was associated with better
academic adjustment (see Table 4).
Attachment and Adjustment
To test the hypothesis of a consistent positive
association with adjustment when using either
friendship quality or attachment measures, we
conducted another set of standard multiple
regression analyses to compare ratings of the
Peer Attachment scale of the IPPA and ratings
of items on the SACQ. We conducted four
regression analyses with the three peer attach­

560 Journal of College Student Development

Peer Relationships and Adjustment

ment subscales as predictor variables and each
of the four SACQ subscales as outcome or
dependent variables. Results revealed that the
total contribution of all the peer attachment
subscales was a significant predictor of each of
the four types of adjustment (see Table 5).
Upon examining the individual contributions
of each peer attachment subscale, greater
alienation from peers was associated with
poorer adjustment (all four forms; see Table 5).
Furthermore, ratings of trust were signifi­cantly
associated with social adjustment and insti­
tutional attachment such that greater trust of
peers was associated with better adjustment
(see Table 5).
As another test of the association between
attachment and adjustment, we conducted a
general linear model analysis to assess the
association between self–ratings of attachment
style (from the RQ) and the subscales of the
SACQ. In the overall model, attachment style
was associated with adjustment at the multi­
variate level, Wilks’ Λ = .88, F(12, 537) = 2.29,
p < .01, η 2 = .04, and univariate level for
social adjustment, F(3, 206) = 2.66, p < .05,
η2 = .04, and emotional/personal adjustment,
F(3,206) = 4.82, p < .01, η 2 = .07. Upon
examining post–hoc follow–up analyses, we
dis­covered that individuals who rated them­
selves as securely attached had significantly
better emotional/personal adjustment than did
individuals who were “disorganized” in their
attachments. Individuals who were disorganized
also differed significantly in their emotional/
personal adjustment from those who were
avoidant (see Table 6).
Conflict and Adjustment
Based on our hypothesis of a positive association
between friendship quality (positive aspects of
relationships) and adjustment, we expected
ratings of conflict to be negatively associated
with adjustment. We conducted correlational
analyses to compare ratings of the QRI–
Conflict subscale regarding one’s best high
school friend (Time 1 and Time 2) and one’s
best college friend (Time 2) to ratings of the
four SACQ subscales. Supporting our hypoth­
esis, results of these analyses revealed that
conflict with both high school and college

Table 5.
Associations Among Attachment Behaviors and Adjustment to College

Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire

Emotional/
Academic Social Personal Institutional
Adjustment Adjustment Adjustment Attachment

Inventory Of Peer Attachment

Peer Trust .07 .13* .11 .13*
Peer Communication .00 .02 –.12 –.04
Peer Alienationa .22*** .17** .29*** .19**
R2 for Overall Regression .12*** .15*** .15*** .12***
Model
Note. Numbers in table represent unique contributions of predictors to R2 (semipartial correlations, sr2) in their
respective regression models.
a Alienation items were reverse–scored. Thus, higher scores indicate lesser alienation.
*p < .03. **p < .01. *** p < .001.

November /December 2008 ◆ vol 49 no 6 561

 Swenson, Nordstrom, & Hiester

Table 6.
Attachment Style and Adjustment to College

Adjustment

Emotional/
Academic Social Personal Institutional

Attachment Style M SD M SD M SD M SD

Secure 51.61 11.02 50.74 8.87 50.91a 9.65 49.44 10.65

Anxious–Resistant 51.68 8.03 47.23 10.57 48.13 7.88 48.23 9.48

Avoidant 51.59 11.60 49.44 8.56 49.78b 10.71 49.53 7.68

Disorganized 48.52 7.05 46.04 7.21 43.26a,b 4.67 47.57 7.72

Note. Means in a column sharing subscripts are significantly different, p < .05, according to the Tukey honestly
significant difference comparison. For all adjustment categories, higher means indicate better adjustment.

friends was significantly associated with all
forms of adjustment, such that a greater
presence of conflict was associated with poorer
adjustment to college (see Tables 2, 3, and 4).
Discussion
The major goal of this study was to describe
the association between relationship quality
and adjustment among college students. The
literature on this topic is small, and with
growing concern about retention of students
on college campuses we sought to provide
some useful information for campus personnel
who can assist students as they adjust to this
new environment and the emerging adulthood
phase of life.
Relationship Quality and Adjustment
We began with an assessment of friendship
quality and compared ratings of positive
aspects of relationships to several types of
college adjustment, including academic, social,
emotional/personal, and institutional attach­
ment. Consistent with research documenting
the benefits of friendships during childhood
and adolescence (e.g., see Hartup & Stevens,
1997; Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995; Rubin et
al., 1998) and older adulthood (e.g., see Adams
& Blieszner, 1995; Antonucci & Akiyama,
1995), we found that, during the first few
weeks of a college student’s first semester, the
relationship with one’s best high school friend
is important because this friend is someone
with whom the new college student can be
open or frank. Having an old familiar friend
to turn to when in need of peer support was
related to both emotional/personal adjustment
and institutional attachment. These results are
similar to other research on college students
that describes a positive association between
social support and emotional well–being
(Abbey et al., 1985). Moreover, results are
con­sistent with research on younger adolescents
describing that better–quality friendships are
associated with fewer internalizing problems
or better emotional adjustment (Cooper et al.,
1998; Demir & Urberg, 2004; Rubin et al.,
2004). Perhaps it is the case that venting about
stressors helps the new college student to not
only lesson the likelihood of poor emotional
coping but also to feel better about being in

562 Journal of College Student Development

Peer Relationships and Adjustment
the new college environment and, thus, more
attached to the institution itself.
Later into a college student’s first semester,
the role of the relationship with one’s best high
school friend changed with regard to adjust­
ment. Our results suggest that it is important
for a new college student to no longer be in
an exclusive relationship with his/her best high
school friend. It still may be helpful to know
this friend will be loyal and would be there if
needed without it being an imposition.
However, in order to really attach to the new
environment and adjust socially, as is suggested
by results of analyses of ratings of college
friendships, making new college friends is
important to adjustment.
These results support Bean’s (1985)
findings that socialization is not as successful
if students are more attached to individuals
outside the institution as opposed to those
within. The different role of high school
friends in the life of college students who are
into the third month in their new environment
also seems similar to literature describing the
functions of friendships in older adulthood.
Carstensen’s (1987, 1992) socioemotional
selectivity theory describes that as adults age
into their later years they become more
selective about the relationships that they
maintain. Older adults retain the relationships
that provide them with the most support,
whether it is perceived or enacted support.
Perhaps this filtering out process also takes
place with high school friends, especially as
college students encounter new peers in their
new environment from whom they may be
able to connect to draw support.
As expected, the new college friendships
that are forming play a different role than do
high school friendships. The pattern of results
regarding best college friendships suggests that
academic and social adjustment and institu­
tional attachment are associated with finding
a person who will be loyal and who shares
November /December 2008 ◆ vol 49 no 6
common interests. These results are similar to
research that shows that having friends to
spend time with is positively correlated with
satisfaction with student life (Astin, 1993).
Our data expand on this by revealing that
knowledge that there is a friend available when
needed may be enough to help students adjust
and commit to this new environment. The
importance of loyal peers is characteristic of
the adolescent age period (see Hartup, 1993;
Laursen, 1996; Sullivan, 1953) and continues
to be important among emerging adults, as
suggested by our data. That trust and loyalty
of new college friends was significantly related
to academic adjustment could suggest that if
a college student can successfully make new
friends who will be loyal and trustworthy, this
can help them maintain some focus on aca­
demics and thus experience better adjustment
in this area.
In addition to assessing the link between
friendship quality and adjustment for high
school and college best friendships, we expected
that adjustment would be positively associated
with measures of attachment. In measuring
attachment with friends in general rather than
attachment to one’s specific best friend, greater
feelings of alienation from peers was associated
with poor academic and emotional/personal
adjustment. This suggests that an insufficient
number of friends may be related to a dimin­
ished ability to concentrate on academic work.
Moreover, our results are consistent with
research describing a link between loneliness,
social anxiety, or insecure attachment styles
and internalizing problems, such as depression
(e.g., La Greca & Harrison, 2005; Lopez,
Mitchell, & Gormley, 2002). However, if a
new college student has a friend who will be
there for support or to show understanding,
this is associated with better social adjustment
and attachment to the institution.
Our assessment of attachment also in­
cluded a comparison of attachment style with
563

adjustment outcomes. Results were consistent
with previous findings described that closer
relationships are associated with better emo­
tional/personal adjustment and that less
security in relationships is associated with
poorer adjustment. These results are consistent
with previous research focusing on children
and adolescents (e.g., Cooper et al., 1998;
Greenberg et al., 1983), and college students
(Fass & Tubman, 2002; Lapsley & Edgerton,
2002).
Conflict and Adjustment
Another assessment was of negative friendship
quality, specifically conflict. When we examined
the link between conflict and adjustment, we
found that if there was conflict, this was
associated with poorer adjustment in all areas,
which is consistent with results from previous
research on young children (Ladd, Kochen­
derfer, & Coleman, 1996). Although our data
do not allow for conclusions about a causal
relationship between conflict and adjustment,
a possibility for future research would be to
determine whether the conflict occurs first. If it
does, then perhaps this is related to dimin­ished
ability to concentrate on adjusting to new
academic demands, to make new friends, or to
attach oneself to the new college environment.
Research on social support suggests that a good
support network can serve as a buffer against
stressors and is associated with better mental
and emotional health (e.g., Abbey et al., 1985;
Adams & Blieszner, 1995; Buhrmester, 1990).
If a student is in conflict with peers, this could
limit the size of his/her support network and,
thus, adjustment may suffer.
Applications of this Research
Taking all of these findings into consideration,
the picture is clear: Relationship quality is
positively and significantly associated with
adjustment among first–year college students
who are in their emerging adulthood years.
564
Swenson, Nordstrom, & Hiester
Given the specific friendship qualities that we
identified in relation to the specific types of
adjustment, this study should be useful to
college personnel who may wish to intervene
to help new students adjust to the college
environment. For example, providing opportu­
nities for peer interaction and friendship
formation seems crucial to helping students
adjust to their new environment. It also could
be beneficial to recognize the importance of
high school friendships during the initial weeks
of a student’s first semester. Counselors could
help new students learn how to balance time
with “old” friends back home and time with
new peers in the new college setting.
Another strategy for intervention could be
to use assessments of relationship quality to
identify at–risk students who have the potential
to be lost from the system. Although it seems
that the measures are consistent in describing
a positive association between relationship
quality and adjustment, we recommend that
researchers or college personnel who are
interested in studying this link utilize a
measure that can provide a more detailed
analysis of peer relationships, such as the
friendship quality measure utilized in this
study (Intimate Friendship Scale, Sharabany,
1994).
Limitations and Recommendations
for Future Research
We hope that this study may inspire the
growth of research on the role of peer relation­
ships in the lives of emerging adults. Although
our results show only small amounts of
variance in adjustment accounted for by
relationship quality, the fact that the contribu­
tions were significant and supported our
hypotheses based on previous research suggests
that peer relationships do have a significant
effect on adjustment and should be studied
further. Given all the transitions that these
individuals experience, having a supportive
Journal of College Student Development
Peer Relationships and Adjustment
network of peers should benefit them in many
ways.
Future research could explore other
outcome variables that are associated with the
success or failure of close peer relationships.
In this study we only assessed types of
adjustment. We encourage researchers to move
forward to examine how peer relationships and
adjustment are associated with additional
outcomes such as academic achievement and
overall retention in college, or whether other
variables such as self–esteem, mental health,
or high school academic achievement might
medi­ate the association between relationship
quality and adjustment or college
achievement.
We also encourage researchers to consider
other methods of assessing peer relationships
to understand better the links between specific
relationship qualities and outcomes such as
adjustment. Although the self–report measures
that we selected for this study were previously
reported to be reliable and valid, we did
discover several low Cronbach’s alpha statistics
when assessing reliability of subscales (r’s
ranged from .54 to . 90). We chose to report
results despite lower reliabilities in order to
make comparisons with previous research
using these measures. Given that we found
some consistent patterns of results across
measures, this could suggest that the low
reliabilities did not have an impact. However,
we recommend that future research consider
different self–report measures of friendship
quality to determine whether a similar pattern
of results still emerges. Moreover, we suggest
extending the literature by using different
forms of measurement to further analyze how
November /December 2008 ◆ vol 49 no 6
peer relationships affect adjustment. For
example, examining verbal communications
between peers could provide insight into how
peers provide support, or interviews with
students might uncover what makes friends
trustworthy.
In addition to considering different
measurement techniques, researchers may also
wish to replicate this research with different
samples to determine the generalizability of
results. We used convenience sampling to
recruit students for this study. It may be infor­
ma­tive to use random sampling techniques to
generate a sample from different types of
universities and colleges or to compare students
at different institutions (e.g., community col­
leges vs. large research universities; campuses
in urban areas vs. rural).
Conclusions
Peer relationships are an integral part of
adolescents’ and emerging adults’ lives. In this
study, we identified specific ways in which
close peer relationships are associated with
adjustment to college. Maintaining ties with
high school friends can help a new college
student adjust during the initial transition
period, but it is also important for these college
students to make new friends in their new
environment if they want to improve their
chances of success. Given the serious implica­
tions of failure in college, this study provides
empirical evidence for the importance of
friendships in the transition to college.
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Lisa Swenson, Penn State Hazleton, 76 Uni­
ver­sity Drive, Hazleton, PA 18202; Lms42@psu.edu
565

References
Abbey, A., Abramis, D. J., & Caplan, R. D. (1985). Effects of
different sources of social support and social conflict on
emotional well–being. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 6,
111–129.
Adams, R. G., & Blieszner, R. (1995). Aging well with friends
and family. American Behavioral Scientist, 39, 209–224.
Antonucci, T. C., & Akiyama, H. (1995). Convoys of social
relations: Family and friendships within a life span context.
In R. Blieszner & V.H. Bedford (Eds.), Handbook of aging
and the family (pp. 355–371). Westport, CT: Greenwood
Press.
Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The Inventory
of Parent and Peer Attachment: Individual differences and
their relationship to psychological well–being in adolescence.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427–454.
Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from
the late teens through the twenties. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years
revisited. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.
Baker, R. W., & Siryk, B. (1984). Measuring adjustment to
college. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 179–189.
Baker, R. W., & Siryk, B. (1999). Student Adaptation to College
Questionnaire manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological
Services.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles
among young adults: A test of a four–category model. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244.
Bean, J. P. (1985). Interaction effects based on class level in an
explanatory model of college student dropout syndrome.
American Educational Research Journal, 22, 35–64.
Berndt, T. J., & Keefe, K. (1992). Friends’ influence on
adolescents’ perceptions of themselves at school. In D. G.,
Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.). Student perceptions in the
classroom. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.
Buhrmester, D. (1990). Intimacy of friendship, interpersonal
competence, and adjustment during preadolescence and
adolescence. Child Development, 61, 1101–1111.
Bukowski, W. M., Hoza, B. & Boivin, M. (1994). Measuring
friendship quality during pre– and early adolescence: The
development of psychometric properties of the Friendship
Qualities Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
11, 471–484.
Burk, W. J., & Laursen, B. (2005). Adolescent perceptions of
friendship and their associations with individual adjustment.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29,
156–164.
Carbery, J., & Buhrmester, D. (1998). Friendship and need
fulfillment during three phases of young adulthood. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(3), 393–409.
Carstensen, L. L. (1987). Age–related changes in social activity.
In L.L . Carstensen & B. A. Edelstein (Eds.), Handbook of
clinical gerontology (pp. 222–237). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon
Press.
Carstensen, L. L. (1992). Social and emotional patterns in
adulthood: Support for socioemotional selectivity theory.
Psychology and Aging, 7, 331–338.
566
Swenson, Nordstrom, & Hiester
Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity
(2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.
Collins, W. A., & Laursen, B. (1992). Conflict and relationships
during adolescence. In C. U. Shantz & W. W. Hartup (Eds.),
Conflict in child and adolescent development (pp. 216–241).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cooper, M. L., Shaver, P. R., & Collins, N. L. (1998).
Attachment styles, emotion regulation, and adjustment in
adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,
1380–1397.
Demir, M., & Urberg, K. A. (2004). Friendship and adjustment
among adolescents. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
88, 68–82.
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society, (2nd ed.). New
York: W.W. Norton.
Fass, M. E., & Tubman, J. G. (2002). The influence of parental
and peer attachment on college students’ academic
achievement. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 561–573.
Fraley, R. C., & Davis, K. E. (1997). Attachment formation
and transfer in young adults’ close friendships and romantic
relationships. Personal Relationships, 4, 131–144.
Friedlander, L. J., Reid, G. J., Shupak, N., & Cribbie, R. (2007).
Social support, self–esteem, and stress as predictors of
adjustment to university among first–year undergraduates.
Journal of College Student Development, 48, 259–274.
Gavin, L. A., & Furman, W. (1989). Age differences in
adolescents’ perceptions of their peer groups. Developmental
Psychology, 25, 827–834.
Goldberg, S. (2000). Attachment and development. London:
Arnold.
Grabill, C. M., & Kerns, K. A. (2000). Attachment style and
intimacy in friendship. Personal Relationships, 7, 363–378.
Greenberg, M. T., Siegel, J. M., & Leitch, C. J. (1983). The
nature and importance of attachment relationships to parents
and peers during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
12, 373–386.
Hartup, W. W. (1993). Adolescents and their friends. In B.
Laursen (Ed.), Close friendships in adolescence (pp. 3–22). San
Francisco: Jossey–Bass.
Hartup, W. W., & Stevens, N. (1997). Friendship and
adaptation in the life course. Psychological Bulletin, 121,
355–370.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized
as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52, 511–524.
Ladd, G. W., & Kochenderfer, B. J. (1996). Linkages between
friendship and adjustment during early school transitions.
In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.),
The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence
(pp. 322–345). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B. J., & Coleman, C. C. (1996).
Friendship quality as a predictor of young children’s early
school adjustment. Child Development, 67, 1103–1118.
La Greca, A. M., & Harrison, H. M. (2005). Adolescent peer
relations, friendships, and romantic relationships: Do they
predict social anxiety and depression? Journal of Clinical Child
and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 49–61.
Journal of College Student Development
Peer Relationships and Adjustment
Lapsley, D. K., & Edgerton, J. (2002). Separation–individuation,
adult attachment style, and college adjustment. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 80, 484–492.
Laursen, B. (1996). Closeness and conflict in adolescent peer
relationships: Interdependence with friends and romantic
partners. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, & W. W.
Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship in childhood
and adolescence (pp. 186–212). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Lopez, F. G., Mitchell, P., & Gormley, B. (2002) Adult
attachment orientations and college student distress: Test of
a mediational model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49,
460–467.
Markiewicz, D., Doyle, A. B., & Brendgen, M. (2001). The
quality of adolescents’ friendships: Associations with mothers’
interpersonal relationships, attachments to parents and
friends, and prosocial behaviors. Journal of Adolescence, 24,
429–445.
Mikulincer, M., & Nachslon, O. (1991). Attachment styles and
patterns of self–disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 61, 321–331.
Newcomb, A. F., & Bagwell, C. L. (1995). Children’s friendship
relations: A meta–analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 117,
306–347.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship
quality in middle childhood: Links with peer group
acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction.
Developmental Psychology, 29, 611–621.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1980). Predicting freshman
persistence and voluntary dropout decisions form a
theoretical model. Journal of Higher Education, 51, 61–95.
Paul, E. L., & Brier, S. (2001). Friendsickness in the transition
to college: Precollege predictors and college adjustment cor­
relates. Journal of Counseling and Development, 79, 77–89.
November /December 2008 ◆ vol 49 no 6
Pierce, G. R., Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (1991). General
and relationship–based perceptions of social support: Are
two constructs better than one? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 61, 1028–1039.
Rose, S. M. (1984). How friendships end: Patterns among young
adults. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1,
267–277.
Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (1998). Peer
interactions, relationships, and groups. In W. Damon & N.
Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3 Social,
emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 619–683).
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Rubin, K. H., Dwyer, K. M., Booth–LaForce, C., Kim, A. H.,
Burgess, K. B., & Rose–Krasnor, L. (2004). Attachment,
friendship, and psychosocial functioning in early adolescence.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 24, 326–356.
Sharabany, R. (1994). Intimate Friendship Scale: Conceptual
underpinnings, psychometric properties and construct valid­
ity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11,
449–469.
Sharabany, R., Gershoni, R., & Hofman, J. E. (1981).
Girlfriend, boyfriend: Age and sex differences in intimate
friendship. Developmental Psychology, 17, 800–808.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry.
New York: W.W. Norton.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical
synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research,
45, 89–125.
Wiseman, H. (1997). Interpersonal relatedness and self–
definition in the experience of loneliness during the transition
to university. Personal Relationships, 4, 285–299.
You, H. S., & Malley–Morrison, K. (2000). Young adult
attachment styles and intimate relationships with close
friends. Journal of Cross–Cultural Psychology, 31, 528–534.
567